CPA in Sudbury - Loss of Taxpayer Control?

Sudbury participates in the CPA in which we voted to set aside an additional 3% of our tax revenue for community preservation oriented projects.  There is a strict list of criteria this funding can be used for, and the state has matched our funding at various percentages since we joined. With more than 12 years under our belt as a participant in the CPA, as a town we have learned what works and what doesn’t work in our favor with the act. At our most recent town meeting, we learned that CPA articles can not generally not be amended by the town legislature. This provision of the CPA does not work in favor of Sudbury taxpayers and residents.

First some background.

At the 2014 ATM, article 32 called for CPA funding to be used for the town rail trail.  The article was written to specify that the design study conform to a Mass DOT standard trail – in other words, the classic paved rail trail favored by the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail group.   A town resident offered an amendment to the design study that as part of the design study, they make sure the study would also allow us to deploy a non-paved surface to support a potential greenway.   The amendment was within the four corners of the article. This amendment was ruled illegal and not considered.

The issue here is not the rail trail, but rather the ability of the town legislature to modify CPA articles. As we learned at town meeting, the state CPA laws strip the Sudbury Legislature from even considering a non-money amendment. In other words, as a legislature, we need can either accept an article, or decrease the funding amount, but we can’t amend it without the recommendation of the Community Preservation Committee.

As the CPC chair explained on the floor of town meeting, the CPC is very deliberative and can’t just quorum on the fly to make a change.  This makes sense and it is important that this standard be upheld in the future should anyone attempt to make non-money amendments to CPA article.

The bigger issue here, said in more stark terms,  is that we, the town legislature,  lost our right to amend legislation to spend tax dollars that we gave the town in exchange for matching funds from the state.  At what point is the loss of this right to amend and the other provisions of CPA not worth the matching funds?  

That is a bigger question to consider and with 12 years of CPA participation, should be asked. But we should have been able to consider the rail trail amendment. It is unfortunate that the CPA legislation doesn’t allow for that.